Jesse Granger

Like, what are they giving to you to do it, to, to do it.

But I would be all over darn owners.

Like if there was any way, any way to make that work and get paid, that might be one of the few,

the few contracts in the NHL where you can still do that kind of old school, get paid to take a distressed asset thing back, which the Canucks should absolutely be in on.

Aiden from Abbotsford, Texan.

I don't fully understand the unwillingness to retain on EP40.

If retaining 2.6 gets you a first, I'd be doing that and wouldn't think too hard about it.

The salary cap will only be relevant for maybe the last year of the six remaining.

And even then, what's 2.6 for one year on $120 million plus upper limit?

The concern about retention for me, Aiden, isn't so much about taking away cap flexibility from the Canucks.

It's that you only get three retention slots.

And retention slots are really a really powerful tool for a rebuilding team.

If you're trying to make deals work at the deadline and locking one of those, one of those three up for six years during the rebuild during a rebuild.

Yeah.

Like that's the stumbling block for me.

It's not so much like, Oh no, they're going to miss the $3 million of salary.

You're taking.

Yeah.

Oh, exactly.

I have no problem taking money back.